Jump to content

Trump Administration Appointments

TahoeHorn

By TahoeHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13193

Posted
Posted
Just now, DanRydell said:

So you started a thread for the purpose of accusing Democrats of obstructing Trump's executive nominees but you don't actually have any knowledge of what nominees have been obstructed or how?

Forget it Jake, it's TahoeHorn.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25922

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Is that an argument that the NLRB guy is a puppet?

under a rational POTUS the answer would be no.   Trump probably demands a loyalty pledge from every appointee. 

Edited by Gil Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted

At this point in Obama's term 19 of his District Court nominees were confirmed.  Trump has had 20 of his District Court nominees confirmed.  

And Trump's nominated so called attorneys who don't know what a motion in limine is,  have never been to a deposition, and couldn't tell you if Brown v. Board of Ed was rightly decided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25922

Posted
Posted
Just now, lemonlime said:

At this point in Obama's term 19 of his District Court nominees were confirmed.  Trump has had 20 of his District Court nominees confirmed.  

And Trump's nominated so called attorneys who don't know what a motion in limine is,  have never been to a deposition, and couldn't tell you if Brown v. Board of Ed was rightly decided.

GOP List bro.  That was Tahoe's pot of gold; that fucking list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

At this point in Obama's term 19 of his District Court nominees were confirmed.  Trump has had 20 of his District Court nominees confirmed.  

And Trump's nominated so called attorneys who don't know what a motion in limine is,  have never been to a deposition, and couldn't tell you if Brown v. Board of Ed was rightly decided.

That guy was bounced by his own REPUBLICAN Senator.

 

Oh, and the Brown thing is a cheap publicity stunt.  These nominees are not supposed to have an opinion on ANY issue which could come before them.  Because it's tough to say what will and what won't they have taken positions not to opine on past cases.  There was no suggestion that Brown was wrongly decided and the point was clear that the nominee would give no opinion on any case.

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3654

Posted
Posted (edited)

According to WaPo, Trumps nominees face a 85-day waiting period.  How does that compared to previous administrations?

As to quality of nominee: what percent have failed to be confirmed?

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25922

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

8 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

That guy was bounced by his own REPUBLICAN Senator.

 

Oh, and the Brown thing is a cheap publicity stunt.  These nominees are not supposed to have an opinion on ANY issue which could come before them.  Because it's tough to say what will and what won't they have taken positions not to opine on past cases.  There was no suggestion that Brown was wrongly decided and the point was clear that the nominee would give no opinion on any case.

he's from DC.  Who's his senator?

Edited by Gil Bang
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9816

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Yes there is.  And that's the point.  The Dems can, and do,  take up hours and hours with each appointee.The GOP can eventually stop it but unless they change the rules the Dems can chew up the calendar.  From the time a person is nominated till the time he's confirmed is taking about three months if he's a priority.

Oh no. .. a couple of hours to consider appointments..some of which are lifetime?   That's horrible!   For some reason I don't remember your outrage at O's appointments being blocked for years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13031

Posted
Posted

Remember that time Republicans refused to hold hearing regarding a President’s Supreme Court nominee for a year, and then spent the next two years calling democrats obstructionists? Good times.

Also, this is a troll thread. We need to stop feeding this disingenuous douchebag.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7551

Posted
Posted

Since Tahoe has decided to bring up his bullshit claims of imaginary Democrat obstruction of judges in here too, he now has two threads literally bitching about the exact same topic on the front page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Still wondering which one of Trumps nominees were filibustered.

All of them.  (I think.  I don't remember any that weren't.) None were blocked.  All were stalled.  The Dems chewed up hours of floor time then the GOP voted to cut off "debate".

Edited by TahoeHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15770

Posted
Posted

The terrible Judicial nominee who was so embarrassed during a hearing that he withdrew his name from consideration is being used as evidence that the confirmation process should be sped up.  Straight up trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11296

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Oh, and the Brown thing is a cheap publicity stunt.  These nominees are not supposed to have an opinion on ANY issue which could come before them.

I know the Trump admin is racist, but do you really expect Brown vs. Education to be retried in the Federal Courts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25922

Posted
Posted
No.  I'm suggesting the Senator is Republican.

 

You referred to him as “...his own REPUBLICAN Senator”, not “a Republican” but “his own” Which is inaccurate and I suspect, intentionally misleading.

 

They are not from the same state. The nominee was not from Louisiana.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
19 hours ago, DanRydell said:

So you started a thread for the purpose of accusing Democrats of obstructing Trump's executive nominees but you don't actually have any knowledge of what nominees have been obstructed or how?

Yes I do.  You didn't read.  I started the thread after watching the obstruction of Kenneth L Marcus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted

Tahoe:  "They are demanding hearings, using filibusters and demanding roll call votes for uncontroversial nominees."

Also Tahoe:  my example is a controversial nominee who eventually got through on a party-line 50-46 vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Yes I do.  You didn't read.  I started the thread after watching the obstruction of Kenneth L Marcus.

Marcus was confirmed 50-46, so at least based on the final vote, it appears he does not fit your criteria of being uncontroversial.

He was referred out of committee and thus placed on the Senate Calendar on January 18 along with 29 other executive nominations.

Of those 30, 8 were confirmed with a voice vote within one month by a voice vote.

Only one has been confirmed with more than 50 votes.

Of the remaining 21, which ones are uncontroversial and what is your basis for concluding such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

You are conflating several arguments.  It is not my contention that all nominees are uncontroversial.   Marcus was controversial.  Many others have been as well.  Many more will be.

I am not arguing that the Dems are doing anything immoral or anything the GOP hasn't done.  I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.

Imagine an argument about a proposed rule change to prevent injuries to football players.  I wouldn't be arguing that players were being immoral by engaging in the dangerous practice.  I wouldn't be arguing that only your team did it.  I wouldn't be arguing that every instance of engaging in the dangerous practice resulted in an injury.  I'd be saying "Let's make the game safer."  I really wouldn't want to go over film and argue which team engaged in the dangerous practice more. 

 

Edited by TahoeHorn
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
Posted
You are conflating several arguments.  It is not my contention that all nominees are uncontroversial.   Marcus was controversial.  Many others have been as well.  Many more will be.
I am not arguing that the Dems are doing anything immoral or anything the GOP hasn't done.  I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.
Imagine an argument about a proposed rule change to prevent injuries to football players.  I wouldn't be arguing that players were being immoral by engaging in the dangerous practice.  I wouldn't be arguing that only your team did it.  I wouldn't be arguing that every instance of engaging in the dangerous practice resulted in an injury.  I'd be saying "Let's make the game safer."  I really wouldn't want to go over film and argue which team engaged in the dangerous practice more. 
 


I’m not conflating anything. I’m asking you what your calculus is for deeming a nominee uncontroversial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, DanRydell said:

 


I’m not conflating anything. I’m asking you what your calculus is for deeming a nominee uncontroversial.

 

Whether a material number of Senators (say more than a dozen or so) oppose him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18851

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

All of them.  (I think.  I don't remember any that weren't.) None were blocked.  All were stalled.  The Dems chewed up hours of floor time then the GOP voted to cut off "debate".

None of them were filibustered. None of them required 60 votes to end debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

None of them were filibustered. None of them required 60 votes to end debate. 

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25922

Posted
Posted
You are conflating several arguments.  It is not my contention that all nominees are uncontroversial.   Marcus was controversial.  Many others have been as well.  Many more will be.
I am not arguing that the Dems are doing anything immoral or anything the GOP hasn't done.  I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.
Imagine an argument about a proposed rule change to prevent injuries to football players.  I wouldn't be arguing that players were being immoral by engaging in the dangerous practice.  I wouldn't be arguing that only your team did it.  I wouldn't be arguing that every instance of engaging in the dangerous practice resulted in an injury.  I'd be saying "Let's make the game safer."  I really wouldn't want to go over film and argue which team engaged in the dangerous practice more. 
 

Yet, for the previous 8 years you didn’t make those arguments
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

Oh hey its the guy who constantly whines about personal insults calling someone stupid.  Not having a fun time trolling now that everyone is on to you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105083

Posted
Posted
I'm arguing against practices that aren't good for the US.

 

You of all people don’t get to do that anymore. You and your donut eaters have set the tone, set the new precedent, and made a completely horrific set of rules as to how multiple branches of government will be run.

 

I look forward to the day they are used to fuck you up the ass. Hoisted on your own petard.

 

Which will CONTINUE to be bad for the country, but that ship has SAILED. We’re fucked, it’s over, and your guys celebrate that with glee. It’s gonna be fun when it’s their day in the barrel. No lube at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TahoeHorn

TahoeHorn 107

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

 


You of all people don’t get to do that anymore. You and your donut eaters have set the tone, set the new precedent, and made a completely horrific set of rules as to how multiple branches of government will be run.

I look forward to the day they are used to fuck you up the ass. Hoosted on your own petard.

Which will CONTINUE to be bad for the country, but that ship has SAILED. We’re fucked, it’s over, and your guys celebrate that with glee. It’s gonna be fun when it’s their day in the barrel. No lube at all.

 

Silly boy.  You have a serious misunderstanding about how much impact I have.  I'm one of 325MM people influencing the process.  I'm not one of the Illuminati.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105083

Posted
Posted
Silly boy.  You have a serious misunderstanding about how much impact I have.  I'm one of 325MM people influencing the process.  I'm not one of the Illuminati.

You have the influence of one person involved in politics.

And you use it to pervert the system, fuck over the country, and destroy all norms.

Your ironic suffering will be wonderful. Because it is so deserved.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18851

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

Please cite a roll call that required 60 votes to end debate on any of Trump's nominees.

If debate ends with a majority vote, it isn't a filibuster, even if it is technically a cloture vote.

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13031

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

You are wrong.  I have explained it well enough that even somebody as stupid as you should have been able to understand it.    But you still don't know what a filibuster is.  If there was a cloture vote, then there was a filibuster.  

Fuck off troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted (edited)

I got to thinking today about how all these boot lickers in Congress remaining silent are going to be remembered 10 years from now.  I’m tempted to start making a list.  My GOP representative will be at the top.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...